A Rose By Any Other Name
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has reacted to a proposal made in May 2014 by the Bar’s Board of Governors
Court of Appeals Seeks Comments on Proposed Title Change of Bar Counsel
June 15, 2015
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is seeking comments on a proposal by the D.C. Bar to amend Rule XI of the D.C. Court of Appeals Rules Governing the Bar to change the title of Bar Counsel to Disciplinary Counsel and, in effect, to make conforming changes to other rules.
In its proposal, the Bar’s Board of Governors said the new title would more accurately reflect the activities of the prosecutorial office of the D.C. attorney disciplinary system. If adopted, the Office of Bar Counsel would also be renamed the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
The proposed amendment was first submitted to the Bar by the Board on Professional Responsibility in February 2014. In May of that year, the Board of Governors voted to support the proposal and to submit it to the court for its consideration.
In addition to the title change, the proposal seeks to amend relevant D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and Comments; Rule II, Section 7, of the Rules Governing the Bar; and the Commentary to D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49(e) to conform to the proposed new name of the disciplinary office.
Interested parties must submit their written comments by August 10, 2015. Ten copies of any comments should be addressed to Clerk, D.C. Court of Appeals, 430 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20001.
View the full court notice or read additional information about the proposal.
I commented on this proposal last year
By letter to Chief Judge Washington dated May 14, 2014, the Board gave three reasons for changing the name that has been used in court opinions and known to the Bar and the public since 1972:
1. “To reflect more accurately the activities of the prosecutorial office of the disciplinary system; “
2. “To resolve the current confusion among the members of the Bar who believe that Bar Counsel is the office that they should contact to advise them about ethical questions; and”
3. “To avoid erroneous service of process on disciplinary authorities perceived to be counsel for the District of Columbia Bar in matters in which the Bar is sued.”
Well.
If you want to avoid confusion, don’t change the name that an Office has been known by for the past 42 years.
It is also well known and made clear to whoever calls Bar Counsel that the office does not provide ethical advice. That has been so since the 1980s. Any calls are simply referred to the Bar’s Ethics Counsel. Reason #2 is entirely specious. — a solution without a problem.
But it is the third justification that really grabs me –they want to it make it easier to sue the Bar. That doesn’t even pass a laugh test.
I’m not sure what is behind this truly awful idea, but it surely is not for the reasons given by the Board of Governors.
Also, if names of the disciplinary components need to “reflect more accurately” their functions, I can think of several new names that better describe the Board on Professional Responsibility.
I had hoped that the court had placed this proposal where it rightly belongs – the circular file. Another hope dashed.
The notice is linked here. (Mike Frisch)